Competence creep in EU free movement case law

[thumbnail of VVelyvyte - Competence Creep ELRev 5 Oct ELRev SSRN version.pdf]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Vėlyvytė, V. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8085-1695 (2023) Competence creep in EU free movement case law. European Law Review, 48 (6). pp. 363-661. ISSN 0307-5400

Abstract/Summary

This article advances the EU competence debate by demonstrating that the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the free movement rules enshrined in the Treaties is a major, and often dominant, cause of EU competence creep. To that end, the article examines the Court’s free movement case law in four sensitive areas of national policy (healthcare, education, collective labour law and gambling) in light of the constitutional principles that govern the scope and exercise of EU competences—conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality. The comparative analysis of the case law allows to identify patterns of judicial reasoning that lead to competence creep in areas that are constitutionally and/or politically sensitive from an EU law point of view. The Court should avoid these patterns of reasoning in order to maintain its legitimacy as a guardian of the rule of law in the EU and, more broadly, preserve the integrity of the EU legal order.

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/113835
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
Publisher Sweet & Maxwell
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar